Before It's News | Popular NEWS

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Obama’s submission to Iran is worse than we imagined. It means war. A war of unimaginable proportion. This deal is not a gamechanger, it’s a worldchanger.

It is no wonder that Obama is hellbent on stopping Prime Minister Netanyahu from speaking to the Congress next month. He will reason with them. The truth will expose Obama’s perfidy.

This isn’t politics or partisan gamesmanship. This is life and death, my friends.

Should Obama steamroll over Congress and ram this death deal through, the free world has only one hope – in the country she has done more to undermine than any other on earth – Israel.

My good friend Paul Schnee has this to say about Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, “Seldom in American history has the United States and her allies been in such lethal danger as they are in now. President Obama’s agreement with Iran, if concluded, will leave the Iranian mullahs with most of their centrifuges spinning away with the ability to become a nuclear power within a matter of months.

The terms of the agreement are so bad that they are forcing Democrats to choose between safeguarding America’s vital security interests or remaining loyal to a president whose ardent and determined pursuit of his anti-West ideology has placed the country he is supposed to be leading upon a trap-door which could be sprung by Iran almost at any moment.

For her very survival this will leave Israel with little choice but to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to secure not only her own safety but also, ironically enough, the safety of America and the West.

At that point Israel will face ferocious attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah and perhaps from the Palestinian Authority’s militia. Israel will suffer a tremendous loss of life. Iran may then unleash its terrorist cells already operating within the United States murdering many of our citizens and the cry you will hear from Iran will be, “Look what the Jews made us do!!” However, it will be Obama’s suicidal policies which precipitated this disaster placing us teetering on the brink of World War III.

You will notice from the article below that the analytical powers of Henry Kissinger at 91 years of age exceed that of every member of the White House’s national security apparatus combined.

Please contact all of your senators and congressmen and demand that Obama’s deal, which puts us all in mortal peril, be pole-axed and that any future agreement MUST be approved by the Congress of the United States where we, THE PEOPLE, govern.”

“…a process that began with the goal of eliminating Iran’s potential to produce nuclear weapons has evolved into a plan to tolerate and temporarily restrict that capability.” “Where it once aimed to eliminate Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, the administration now appears ready to accept an infrastructure of thousands of Iranian centrifuges.”

AS THE Obama administration pushes to complete a nuclear accord with Iran, numerous members of Congress, former secretaries of state and officials of allied governments are expressing concern about the contours of the emerging deal. Though we have long supported negotiations with Iran as well as the interim agreement the United States and its allies struck with Tehran, we share several of those concerns and believe they deserve more debate now — before negotiators present the world with a fait accompli.

The problems raised by authorities ranging from Henry Kissinger, the country’s most senior former secretary of state, to Sen. Timothy M. Kaine, Virginia’s junior senator, can be summed up in three points:

●First, a process that began with the goal of eliminating Iran’s potential to produce nuclear weapons has evolved into a plan to tolerate and temporarily restrict that capability.

●Second, in the course of the negotiations, the Obama administration has declined to counter increasingly aggressive efforts by Iran to extend its influence across the Middle East and seems ready to concede Tehran a place as a regional power at the expense of Israel and other U.S. allies.

●Finally, the Obama administration is signaling that it will seek to implement any deal it strikes with Iran — including the suspension of sanctions that were originally imposed by Congress — without a vote by either chamber. Instead, an accord that would have far-reaching implications for nuclear proliferation and U.S. national security would be imposed unilaterally by a president with less than two years left in his term.

The first and broadest of these problems was outlined by Mr. Kissinger in recent testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee. The talks, he pointed out, began as a multilateral effort headed by the European Union and backed by six U.N. Security Council resolutions intended “to deny Iran the capability to develop a military nuclear option.” Though formally the multilateral talks continue, “these negotiations have now become an essentially bilateral negotiation” between the United States and Iran “over the scope of that [nuclear] capability, not its existence,” Mr. Kissinger said.

Where it once aimed to eliminate Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, the administration now appears ready to accept an infrastructure of thousands of Iranian centrifuges. It says its goal is to limit and monitor that industrial base so that Iran could not produce the material for a warhead in less than a year. As several senators pointed out last month during a hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee, the prospective deal would leave Iran as a nuclear-threshold state while theoretically giving the world time to respond if Tehran chose to build a weapon. Even these limited restrictions would remain in force for only a specified number of years, after which Iran would be free to expand its production of potential bomb materials.

Mr. Kissinger said such an arrangement would very likely prompt other countries in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, to match Iran’s threshold capability. “The impact . . . will be to transform the negotiations from preventing proliferation to managing it,” he said. “We will live in a proliferated world in which everybody — even if that agreement is maintained — will be very close to the trigger point.”

A related problem is whether Iran could be prevented from cheating on any arrangement and acquiring a bomb by stealth. Mr. Kaine (D) underlined that an attempt by the United States to negotiate the end of North Korea’s nuclear program failed after the regime covertly expanded its facilities. With Iran, said Mr. Kaine, “a nation that has proven to be very untrustworthy . . . the end result is more likely to be a North Korean situation” if existing infrastructure is not dismantled.

The administration at one time portrayed the nuclear negotiations as distinct from the problem of Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, its attempts to establish hegemony over the Arab Middle East and its declared goal of eliminating Israel. Yet while the talks have proceeded, Mr. Obama has offered assurances to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that the two countries have shared interests in the region, and the White House has avoided actions Iran might perceive as hostile — such as supporting military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad.

For their part, the Iranians, as Mr. Kaine put it, “are currently involved in activities to destabilize the governments of [U.S.-allied] nations as near as Bahrain and as far away as Morocco.” A Tehran-sponsored militia recently overthrew the U.S.-backed government of Yemen. Rather than contest the Iranian bid for regional hegemony, as has every previous U.S. administration since the 1970s, Mr. Obama appears ready to concede Iran a place in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and beyond — a policy that is viewed with alarm by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey, among other allies.

Former secretary of state George P. Shultz cited Iran’s regional aggression in pronouncing himself “very uneasy” about the ongoing negotiations. “They’ve already outmaneuvered us, in my opinion,” he told the Armed Services Committee.

While presidents initiate U.S. foreign policies, it is vital that major shifts win the support of Congress and the country; otherwise, they will be unsustainable. Yet Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken suggested in Senate testimony that the administration intends to postpone any congressional vote on a deal indefinitely, meeting its commitments to Iran by using provisions allowing it to suspend legislatively enacted sanctions. Mr. Blinken conceded that the Iranian parliament would likely vote on any accord but said that Congress should act only “once Iran has demonstrated that it’s making good on its commitments.”

Such a unilateral course by Mr. Obama would alienate even his strongest congressional supporters. It would mean that a deal with Iran could be reversed, within months of its completion, by the next president. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Mr. Obama wishes to avoid congressional review because he suspects a bipartisan majority would oppose the deal he is prepared to make. If so, the right response to the questions now being raised is to seek better terms from Iran — or convince the doubters that an accord blessing and preserving Iran’s nuclear potential is better than the alternatives.

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 20, President Barack Obama claimed: “Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material. Between now and this spring, we have a chance to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that prevents a nuclear-armed Iran; secures America and our allies — including Israel; while avoiding yet another Middle East conflict.”

None of that is true. The chances of an agreement have dropped sharply, and even the most optimistic analysts do not expect a deal that “prevents a nuclear-armed Iran,” but only one that puts nuclear “breakout” out of reach for a while. Most important of all, we have not “halted the progress” of Iran’s nuclear program. Earlier this month, the Tehran regime announced that it was building two new reactors, and is thought to be behind a suspected facility planned in Syria as well.

In a lengthy essay in Commentary magazine, the invaluable Omri Ceren summarizes the history of President Obama’s appeasement of the Iranians, from the first failed “sucker’s deal,” as the French (!) called it, through the new veto threats against congressional sanctions.

The scale of the Obama administration’s incompetence is simply daunting. Far from rallying international unity against Iran, Obama has destroyed it by giving away global demands decades in the making.

Suddenly the reason for Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress–without consultation with the White House–becomes clear, in a way that Boehner has yet to explain it himself.

It is not the pro-Israel nature of Congress that drove the Bibi invitation. It is the fact that Obama has lied to everyone–Congress, the public, even his own national security officials–about what is in the Iran deal.

For example, Obama came to office promising to uphold previous international understandings that Iran would not be allowed to enrich uranium at all. He also told everyone the deal would cover ballistic missiles. Yet the interim agreement provides for enrichment and does not even cover missiles.

There are at least five ways in which Iran has explicitly violated the interim agreement–a “bad deal” that has been extended twice but has failed to produce anything but more time for Iran.

1. Trying to buy equipment for plutonium reactor at Arak, breaking commitment to suspend work. The Obama administration actually complained about the purchases to the UN Security Council, even as it told the world that Iran had “lived up to its end of the bargain.” Iran’s defense–adopted to some extent by the State Department, which is desperate to save the talks–is that the agreement did not apply to work offsite, or to onsite work unrelated to the reactor.

2. Feeding uranium hexafluoride gas into a plant where it had agreed to suspend nuclear enrichment. The Institute for Science and International Security noted that Iran had begun enrichment at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz. It notified the Obama administration, which complained to the Iranians, which then claimed to have stopped the enrichment activity. Whether that is true or not, this is another case of the Obama administration knowing Iran cheated.

3. Withholding camera footage of nuclear facilities, defying the International Atomic Energy Agency. A leading International Atomic Energy Agency official recently said the agency was “not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran” (original emphasis). The interim deal was to provide surveillance footage of Iranian nuclear facilities–but Iran has only provided what it wants to reveal.

4. Testing new IR-8 centrifuges, advancing its enrichment program and making cheating much easier. A violation of the spirit, if not also the letter, of the agreement, the development of a new centrifuge that can work sixteen times faster than its first-generation centrifuges would make cheating far easier and verification far more difficult. The new device essentially nullifies the verification process agreed to in the interim deal (and which Obama promises to expand).

5. Exporting more energy than allowed under the interim agreement, blunting residual sanctions. The deal capped Iran’s exports of crude oil to 1 million barrels per day. But early on, Iran was already breaking that agreement, according to the International Energy Agency–nearly doubling the allowed amount. That means the effect of remaining sanctions has been seriously undermined, meaning Iran has broken the interim deal and reduced its need for another.

These five are simply the known ways in which Iran is cheating. In each case, the Obama administration–alarmingly–has defended the Iranians or covered up their violations, all for the sake of preserving a deal that looks increasingly like the “historic mistake” Netanyahu declared it to be at the outset.

Obama has also accused his critics of wanting war, and of being paid off by their donors. Yet he is the one who is breaking faith with the voters, with our allies, and with his oath.

Read more about WashPost Exposes Obama’s Disastrous Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal Point By Horrible Point